Postmodernism—I’ve been intrigued since David mentioned it :
(Postmodernism is not inherently rubbish—it is indeed a fantastically useful tool in criticism and understanding of human culture, and other human activities that might as well be culture. As Lucidfox points out, rather more is relative than most people assume, and postmodernism is useful in working out what that is. Any writer should IMO have a working familiarity with its tools. However, some proponents really don’t realise that reality exists, and they end up slightly embarrassed.)
So, even if postmodernism is madness, is there a method in it? I doubt, but am curious. The RationalWiki article is not much convincing, it just asserts that postmodernism is somehow valuable, but does not say how.
People who habitually project their own wiring onto their environment can benefit from a systematic approach to short-circuiting that projection. A lot of postmodernist traditions attempt to encourage such an approach, and when they succeed, they are beneficial.
That said, IME the study of cognition, evopsych, and other cultures achieves much the same benefit more cost-effectively.
This is rather vague actually. Postmodernism lumps together hundreds of ideas and concepts. These ideas vary greatly in their usefulness and their bullshit content. Any statement broad enough to cover all of postmodernism is trivial and unhelpful- I’m not sure there is a “Postmodernism for rationalists” waiting to be written. For a general overview the wikipedia article is really, really good.
Also, attention RationalWiki writers: Derrida was not the founder of postmodernism.
I’m not sure there is a “Postmodernism for rationalists” waiting to be written.
But maybe there are some specific topics or methods or approaches that would fall under “postmodernism” or “critical theory” or “deconstruction”, and that could be interesting or useful to rationalists.
Or something like “this is how postmodernists would approach such-and-such a subject, and their analysis has some value in this case”.
Postmodernism—I’ve been intrigued since David mentioned it :
I’m interested in the general category of social science ideas that were big and important 50 or 100 years ago, but have since fallen out of favor. I’m sure guys like Freud, Jung, Weber, Marx, and Durkheim had some interesting ideas. I’d like to know what those ideas were, and why people at the time took them so seriously.
I’m sure guys like Freud, Jung, Weber, Marx, and Durkheim had some interesting ideas. I’d like to know what those ideas were, and why people at the time took them so seriously.
So… my opinion here is generally, if someone is worth reading the originals, you’d know already. It is worth reading The Wealth Of Nations, because Adam Smith was that clever and that comprehensive. Is it worth reading Marx? Well… not really. His method of explanation is pretty poor, actually.
With Freud, you have one core insight that is truly revolutionary (the primary human drive is libido) and then a bunch of mind projection fallacy. Humans actually have an anti-incest impulse such that they don’t find people they grew up around attractive. Freud’s mother was totally hot, though (or something), and so Freud projected his Oedipus complex onto everyone else. The rest of what he posited is generally totally wrong. (Not as familiar with Jung / Weber / Durkheim.)
And so if someone asks me whether they should read Smith xor Hayek, I have a hard time answering. If someone asks me whether they should read Darwin xor Dawkins, I favor Dawkins (but haven’t read much of Darwin). When someone asks me whether they should read modern psychology xor Freud, there’s no contest. You could read something like The Red Queen by Ridley and get a much fuller expansion of Freud’s insight than you could by reading Freud.
(xor = exclusive or; if it’s regular or, the answer for the first one, at least, is “both!”)
Postmodernism—I’ve been intrigued since David mentioned it :
(There’s already an article on RationalWiki)
So, even if postmodernism is madness, is there a method in it? I doubt, but am curious. The RationalWiki article is not much convincing, it just asserts that postmodernism is somehow valuable, but does not say how.
People who habitually project their own wiring onto their environment can benefit from a systematic approach to short-circuiting that projection. A lot of postmodernist traditions attempt to encourage such an approach, and when they succeed, they are beneficial.
That said, IME the study of cognition, evopsych, and other cultures achieves much the same benefit more cost-effectively.
This is rather vague actually. Postmodernism lumps together hundreds of ideas and concepts. These ideas vary greatly in their usefulness and their bullshit content. Any statement broad enough to cover all of postmodernism is trivial and unhelpful- I’m not sure there is a “Postmodernism for rationalists” waiting to be written. For a general overview the wikipedia article is really, really good.
Also, attention RationalWiki writers: Derrida was not the founder of postmodernism.
But maybe there are some specific topics or methods or approaches that would fall under “postmodernism” or “critical theory” or “deconstruction”, and that could be interesting or useful to rationalists.
Or something like “this is how postmodernists would approach such-and-such a subject, and their analysis has some value in this case”.
I’m interested in the general category of social science ideas that were big and important 50 or 100 years ago, but have since fallen out of favor. I’m sure guys like Freud, Jung, Weber, Marx, and Durkheim had some interesting ideas. I’d like to know what those ideas were, and why people at the time took them so seriously.
So… my opinion here is generally, if someone is worth reading the originals, you’d know already. It is worth reading The Wealth Of Nations, because Adam Smith was that clever and that comprehensive. Is it worth reading Marx? Well… not really. His method of explanation is pretty poor, actually.
With Freud, you have one core insight that is truly revolutionary (the primary human drive is libido) and then a bunch of mind projection fallacy. Humans actually have an anti-incest impulse such that they don’t find people they grew up around attractive. Freud’s mother was totally hot, though (or something), and so Freud projected his Oedipus complex onto everyone else. The rest of what he posited is generally totally wrong. (Not as familiar with Jung / Weber / Durkheim.)
And so if someone asks me whether they should read Smith xor Hayek, I have a hard time answering. If someone asks me whether they should read Darwin xor Dawkins, I favor Dawkins (but haven’t read much of Darwin). When someone asks me whether they should read modern psychology xor Freud, there’s no contest. You could read something like The Red Queen by Ridley and get a much fuller expansion of Freud’s insight than you could by reading Freud.
(xor = exclusive or; if it’s regular or, the answer for the first one, at least, is “both!”)